I haven't been here in a while, but I wanted to comment on the last few posts. I find it very interesting that tod and peleke4 both mention how difficult the first five chapters of the text are. There is a reason for that. The main version of the Course that most people read is the Foundation for Inner Peace (FIP) version. This version of the Course was highly edited - mainly the first five chapters. After that the text becomes much more clear and flows a lot better. The editing makes for a very confusing first five chapters. This is unfortunate because many people just give up trying to read it and never return to the Course.

There are two other main versions of the Course -- the Urtext and the Hugh Lynn Cayce (HLC) version (sometimes published as the Original Edition). The Urtext is the version with the least amount of editing. It is closest to the original handwritten notes of Helen. It is great for the serious student of the Course, but can also be a little confusing for the new student, in my opinion.

The HLC version has some editing, but it is minimal compared to the FIP version. I read the HLC version when I first tackled the text. I am very glad I did. It made much more sense to me and is a much easier read. I would highly recommend that any one interested in studying the Course begin with this version. You can even get it as a Kindle book. There it is called the Original Edition.

I also still highly recommend the Circle of Atonement website and their many scholarly articles. This is a wonderful resource for any Course student.

BillyPLed wrote:
The HLC version has some editing, but it is minimal compared to the FIP version. I read the HLC version when I first tackled the text. I am very glad I did. It made much more sense to me and is a much easier read. I would highly recommend that any one interested in studying the Course begin with this version. You can even get it as a Kindle book. There it is called the Original Edition.

I also still highly recommend the Circle of Atonement website and their many scholarly articles. This is a wonderful resource for any Course student.

Happy studies!!

I have a friend who has been a Course student for many years, attends weekly classes, and for her its a lifeline.
I recently transcribed a boxful of cassette tapes of readings of all three books to Mp3 format, and listened to some of it, but like kiki said earlier in this thread I find it too wordy, but I could appreciate the same underlying truth present.

I will pass on the website links you mention, thanks.

“I would like my life to be a statement of love and compassion--and where it isn't, that's where my work lies.”
― Ram Dass

"Can you imagine how beautiful those you forgive will look to you?
In NO fantasy have you ever seen anything so lovely.
Nothing you see here, sleeping or waking, comes near to such loveliness, and nothing will you value like unto this, nor hold so dear.
Nothing that you remember, that made your heart seem to sing with joy, has ever brought you even a little part of the happiness this sight will bring you."

This is a statement from the ACIM. Looks innocent enough ... but I would ask the following :

> Why do you need to forgive them ? You only need to forgive them if you had judged them in the first place.
> Why do seek to make any relationship with them ? Are you not entrapping them once again ?
> Why are you using my fantasies as a yardstick ?
> Then there is this long description of "loveliness" which can only serve to spin my fantasies even faster. Thanks, but I am trying to get out of my fantasies.
> Then there is a rejection / judgement of my current life and the things that I have done. "Nothing that you remember ... has ever brought you ... happiness". Oh no ? You don't even know me and you are making judgements.

Frankly the time has passed for people to try to bliss-out and escape life. Sorry, however "well-intentioned" this may be ... it has in it the seeds of darkness. Just look at Christianity and the massive numbers of child rape by priests, or the vast hoarding of wealth to see.

Basically, the problem is that if you want to FORGIVE someone, then you have already JUDGED THEM TO BE BAD.

And you have ignored that.

Deep within ACIM is JUDGEMENT / CRITICISM / LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of what is occurring here.

The 'ego' that you want to criticise ad nauseam is not a mistake. It is doing it's job very well. You wouldn't breathe without the ego. The ego is the one reading ACIM !

Christ, someone please wake up.

I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small

rideforever wrote:" Deep within ACIM is JUDGEMENT / CRITICISM / LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of what is occurring here.

The 'ego' that you want to criticise ad nauseam is not a mistake. It is doing it's job very well. You wouldn't breathe without the ego. The ego is the one reading ACIM !

Christ, someone please wake up.

I agree with you "rideforever", but this is where I get all confused, because many moons ago, I used to have these discussions with my friend, basically criticising ACIM, though I hadn't seen what it was saying as clearly as you have seen it. In the end my friend said I had no right to take away her belief, as it was a lifeline to her.
I then backed off and realised that I didn't have a right to judge anyone in their chosen path whether to me its an unawakened or egoic one.
If ACIM is their path isn't it our truth/duty whatever to not judge that, or do we have some god given right to attempt to awaken them from our truth/perspective?

“I would like my life to be a statement of love and compassion--and where it isn't, that's where my work lies.”
― Ram Dass

"What could you want forgiveness cannot give? Do you want peace? Forgiveness offers it. Do you want happiness, a quiet mind, a certainty of purpose, and a sense of worth and beauty that transcends the world? Do you want care and safety, and the warmth of sure protection always? Do you want a quietness that cannot be disturbed, a gentleness that never can be hurt, a deep, abiding comfort, and a rest so perfect it can never be upset?"

Hmm ... you see we are so full of Christian conditioning that these sentences seem ok to us. But if you read it out to an Aboriginal Australian, he would say WTF ?

The only way to fulfil all this safety and peacefullness - well there is a way ... it's to be totally DEAD. That is the way. And so basically this path is death-worshipping.

Is a rainbow at peace ? Maybe we should switch all the rainbows off because they are too 'noisy' with all their colours. Can we just have white rainbows in future, it's less traumatising ? You see where this logic goes.

Sure if you are messed up you want peace. But that is just one step, it's taking a pause for sanity's sake.

All those unconscious people running around the world partying and shagging and base-jumping know in their hearts, that peace isn't enough. It isn't enough to be outwardly quiet.

I heard Osho talk about the traditional way of teaching people to paint in Japan. Something like, you spend 20 years painting bamboo in the forest, you sit there day after day studying in minute detail, every form, colour, smell, everything in fine fine detail - until you are the bamboo. And then after that the master throws all your work in the garbage, and then you paint for 20 years, you painting anything BUT bamboo. You paint, but anything except bamboo.

And then after those 20 years, making 40 years in total, then .... then you can paint. Then you are ready.

rideforever wrote:we are so full of Christian conditioning that these sentences seem ok to us

Well, surely there has been a boatload of "Christian"conditioning over the last 2,000+ years! It is worthy of note to add that much of what is passed off as "Christian" teaching is completely at odds with the vision of the world that Jesus saw. The original message has been grossly distorted by the human ego.

The vast majority of Christian "leadership" in modern times, just like the religious leaders of Jesus' time, don't "see" the Kingdom of Heaven Jesus saw--a vision of this world that sees no separation (duality) between God and humans.

Jesus tried to to teach people to take the focus off externals, the "law," for example. He wanted everyone to look deep within to see the Kingdom of Heaven, the realization of our oneness; our non-separation from God & each other. Sadly, many Christians are not on the same page with St. Paul:I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me, because they still identify the ego as their true selves.

I have to give credit to ACIM, as it succeeds at pointing to a view of the world through God's eyes, rather than from the ego's. However, the ACIM version of nonduality is not in sync with time-honored traditions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, & Christian mysticism. If I follow correctly, ACIM does not recognize anything such as Source and Source as Manifested. The focus seems to be on mental and physical forms.

I've been reading 'Gifts from a Course in Miracles' Edited by Frances Vaughan & Roger Walsh with photographs by Jane English.

I'd just like to mention the purpose mentioned in it - communication - in line with what was said above about in order for one to forgive one must have judged in advance of the forgiveness... that can only be true in separation of things, people, situations where one believes them self to be separate, and there to be past present and future - which of course is only in perspective.

To for give in awareness does not require pre judging any thing, person or situation because the separation of them is not 'real', separation denotes that one is believing the dream.

- for to give

love embraces all the perceptual and experiential possibilities arising in this moment.

If one furthers 'love' as the equilibrium of gratitude and generosity, one can see that for to give, always in this moment, is to meet and communicate in and as all things without judgement, knowing only that love is all.

The whole concept of forgiveness is messy. From a unity perspective, nothing needs forgiving. Period. But, well...most folks don't live there. Unintentional injury, physical or psychological, merits apology to most people. Forgiving ourselves is important also. That is, not blaming. Kathleen Brugger is a new member here and has written a neat new book "We are Innocent by Reason of Insanity." I have really enjoyed it, and am planning a longish review. The book is here:http://www.innocentbyreasonofinsanity.com/

One of her points is that we really do not have any free will, so the stuff we do which offends or injures others is pretty much out of our control...now most people don't buy that so apologies are necessary. Forgiveness is optional, but easier if you recognize the offending party was innocent because fundamentally insane. She explains why...has to do with the subjective self/mind/ego we create and maintain.

Andy

A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce

I used the world "tool" for a lack of a better word. One could also say it's a shift in perception. Forgiveness in this context is what enables you to realize your true position and hence see that the thing to forgive is in fact illusory (a mind created story.) d

The closest association to me is when Mooji is asking people "Who is...."?

Also to quote ACIM

Forgiveness through the Holy Spirit lies simply in looking beyond error from the beginning, and thus keeping it unreal for you.

Ah Smiiiiiley...ya got me. It was just a rhetorical question...I think we tend to get a little caught up in the magical mystery tour of nonduality. I do think compassion transcends blame and pardon, though. And if we can't forgive, then we still hold blame, we still have an offended ego, and well, maybe forgiveness is a test of some sort. Could the rape victim find compassion? Hard questions. Not many good answers from me........

Andy

A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce